One has to ask the obvious, if panasonic make the most efficient sensors in the digital world, why then does this advantage not present itself in the real world cameras that they produce or make sensors for?
none - I assume.
Perhaps, but not practical. You have to consider the diffraction limitations.
More to the point, try finding a lens that could resolve anywhere near that, on a larger FF or small digicam sensor.
They're probably out there. By my calculations, 100MP would require about 170 lp/mm resolution on a 24x36mm monochrome sensor. With a Bayer pattern, it's probably more like 120 lp/mm. That's well within reason, at least for the central resolution of a fast, well corrected lens. ISTR that Zeiss was claiming resolution of over 250 lp/mm for some of their top of the line lenses.
That's been answered many times before, in threads you have participated in.
It is. The base ISO of the FZ50 is 200 by DSLR standards, but they meter for ISO 100, compared to what would be done on a DSLR, which has a stop more RAW headroom. Unlike DSLRs which start "officially" at 200, but have extended modes of 160 and 125 with reduced RAW headroom, the FZ50 doesn't have enough headroom to do anything that could be called a useful ISO 160 (by DSLR standards).
Diffraction limits are not hard limits. They just mean that the maximum contrast for high resolutions drops more rapidly above a certain frequency, but fine pixel pitch does not makes resolution worse. On the contrary, big pixels contribute more to lack of resolution and can only dwarf the fixed diffraction in comparison, to make it look like diffraction is not an issue at a given aperture. Choosing big pixels to evade diffraction does more to lose subject detail than diffraction does.
IOW, the diffraction limit sets the absolute upper bound. If your pixel pitch is coarser than the diffraction limit, you're not getting everything your lens can deliver.
This is what Adox say about using their CMS film..specialist stuff now, very high resolution (though I would take with a pinch of salt most film/lens makers res claims)
You might have to step above the kit lens a bit to fully appreciate the extra pixel density, but even the kit in its sweet spot will have slightly better resolution with a higher pixel density.
Huh? The inset inside of this downsampled Canon 20D image is a 100% crop of the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro with a 2x and a 1.4x converter stacked, to give a worst-case-scenario of what the lens could do at 100% pixel view with a 64 MP APS-C sensor (and don't forget that the entire image, at this magnification, would be about 9 feet wide:
That point is still a long distance away. Even if you go to resolutions where it takes several pixels to go from the black edge of a sharp border to the white edge at maximum contrast, you still have data that is far more rugged to survive geometric corrections like rotation, perspective distortion, CA correction, resampling, etc. The issues of storage and memory and processor speed may be a problem before the issue of nearly redundant data.
It's a huge part of it, though. The FZ50 vs 400D comparison says to me that resolution, to some extent, is more valuable than low noise. There really is more read noise, integrated, per unit of area, at ISO 1600 in the FZ50 version, but the real problem with noise, IMO, is how it obscures detail, and noise is in competition with detail at different resolutions or frequencies in an image. The bigger pixels simply have NO detail at higher resolutions, so lower noise does nothing for them at higher frequencies.
It takes about 6 pixels to properly resolve a line pair, without aliasing pixels wide. So, at 22.5 mm wide, you'd need an image 22.5*6*250 = 33,750
Not exactly. Things rarely work within such a brick-wall paradigm.
Thanks for the link. I have a Pentax Film camera here that I was considering using for things not yet practical with digital, and shooting film like this sounds like what I had in mind. However, the relevance of this article is totally askew to what we are talking about.
This has nothing at all to do with the issue of varying capture resolution, however, and what its affects are on the final product. They are simply telling how to vary aperture to get the most potential resolution with the film.
2004? Probably the best year in digital photography.
